Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 55

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50 Archive 53 Archive 54 Archive 55 Archive 56 Archive 57 Archive 60

Bob Dylan covers


I originally posted this at Wikiproject Songs. I received a suggestion that this might be a better venue. So here goes nuffin....

Hiya, Wikipedians! I recently added references to Old Crow Medicine Show's new album 50 Years of Blonde on Blonde in the "covers" sections of the articles on the songs appearing on Dylan's original Blonde on Blonde album. Another editor has reverted several of these edits. I made revisions based on his comments but these changes were reverted also. I do not agree with - and, in at least one instance, do not understand the objections given. Rather than get into an edit war I decided to bring the issue here. The other editor initially objected that the references I had added were not notable. I felt that a band that is a Grammy award-winning member of the Grand Ole Opry and an album that has received national press coverage (Rolling Stone, The New Yorker) was at least as notable as the often obscure recordings already mentioned in these particular articles. The other party agreed with that observation, but then argued that the real reason for reverting was to avoid "endless lists of covers." Few, if any, of these articles mentioned more than a handful of covers - none were at risk of being overwhelmed by endless lists. And I felt that removing only a single entry, simply because it was the one most recently added, was highly arbitrary. Then the reason appeared to become that tribute albums are inherently not notable - another arbitrary decision - and I pointed out that many of the remaining entries were also for songs from tribute albums, some by major performers. And I was particularly confused by his citation of wikipedia policies that seemed to deal with the creation of stand-alone articles rather than additions to existing articles, as none of these edits had created a new, stand-alone article. This individual seemed to consider it to be a challenge or personal affront that I disagreed with him - this would be borne out by a review of our dialog on his talk page. His most recent response was to remove ALL mentions of cover versions in several of these articles - which seems to me to be based on spite rather than a desire for editorial consistency. In other words..."I'll show you...." If the determination is indeed that there should be NO mention of ANY cover versions of these songs, so be it - maybe that's better than arbitrary omissions. I'm completely in favor of consistency. But I personally think that that information adds to a reader's understanding of the song's cultural impact - and also that completely removing that information, rather than considering the addition of an item to the list, is a questionable decision. If you're going to remove entire sections from multiple articles, do it because it's the right editorial decision, NOT because you want to spite another editor. Thanks for your thoughts! PurpleChez (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Album chronologies for film franchises and series

Hi. Are infobox chronologies like the "soundtrack chronologies" on Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (soundtrack) appropriate? The infobox documentation states that chronology parameters should only be used for artists/composers. Jc86035 (talk) 03:25, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This seems like a bad idea to me. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 04:05, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The navboxes at the bottom of the article(s) provide all the necessary links – no need to add them again to the infobox. An infobox should focus on details about the actual album; over one-half of the example article infobox is devoted to chronologies and looks like busy work. Meanwhile, the article tells the reader absolutely nothing about the music itself (is it all instrumental or are there vocal pieces? Is it ambient or song-oriented? How does it compare to the previous soundtracks?, etc., etc.) —Ojorojo (talk) 13:56, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Loudest Sound Ever Heard

Please comment on whether WP:PRIMARY content is appropriate as outlined at Talk:The Loudest Sound Ever Heard. Also, if you can help expand the article, that would be useful. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A handful of questions for a new album article

Hi all -- I'm excited to have fleshed out my first article here: Seekers and Finders. I've done the initial work to make the article a stub, and I plan to expand it, but I have some questions about how to move forward:

- I did not originally create the article. Rather, it was an article that simply redirected to the artist page when searched. I then edited that redirect page. Is that a standard practice, or should I have created a new article and removed the simple redirect page? Relatedly, when I start typing the album name in search, both the original article show up and mine (with one saying "(album)" after its name). What can I do about that, so that only one entry shows up?
- I want to add the album cover. I read about fair use at Template:Infobox_album, and I just want to verify that I have the correct understanding of how to do this. It sounds like I should download the image from the UI of (or similar), then upload it to Wikimedia Commons along with the templated rationale here: Template:Non-free_use_rationale_album_cover.
- I did some searching to find the album personnel and studio information, and the only source I could find was the Allmusic page, which in turn does not cite anything: Do you generally find Allmusic to be reliable?
- In suggestive search, I notice that many albums have subtext, e.g. "album by Gogol Bordello", under the album name. How do I get my article to do that?
- At the bottom of the album page, I've added an artist box (not sure exactly what these are called), by putting the artist name inside double curly braces. This new album whose page I've added, however, doesn't show up in the "Studio Albums" list inside that box. What can I do about that?

Thank you for your help.

Cloud atlas (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. Yes, its fine to start articles from a redirect.
  2. I'm not great with Wikipedia image policy - it's rather convoluted. I'll let someone else help, though, for what its worth, other editors end up randomly adding album cover artwork for me over time.
  3. Yes, AllMusic is considered a reliable source for credits. For future reference, you can look over at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES for a collection of sources that are considered usable or unusable.
  4. I'm not entirely sure what you're asking about in this one. Sorry.
  5. You're talking about the artst's template. I've added the album to it for you. For future references, to add things to those artists templates, you need to edit them separately. (Click on the "capital E" in the upper left corner of the template to edit it.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sergecross73 -- thanks for the advice and for adding to the artist's template. To clarify on my two questions about search (I tried to upload screenshots, but I was unsuccessful in storing them in Wikimedia Commons.)
- When I type, for instance, "Pura Vida Conspiracy" in the search bar on, the suggested result pops up under the search bar, along with the light gray text "album by Gogol Bordello". But when I type "Seekers and Finders", that subtext doesn't show up. I want "Seekers and Finders" to also have the "album by Gogol Bordello" subtext.
- When I type "Seekers and Finders" into search in the upper right of my window, I get two results, one that says "Seekers and Finders", which leads to the page I've been working on, and one that says "Seekers and Finders (album)", which redirects to the Gogol Bordello article. I think there should only be one result. Cloud atlas (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The second is a redirect. Follow this link to see the page: YOu can make the target the article you're working on instead of the band article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cloud atlas, just to clarify – when you are talking about the subtext "album by Gogol Bordello" appearing on the search, are you talking about searching on Wikipedia when you are on a mobile device? That subtext won't appear on a search on the desktop version of Wikipedia. Richard3120 (talk) 03:27, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Walter Görlitz -- I changed the second one to redirect to the Seekers and Finders page, but now there are still two distinct pages that come up in search, with them both landing on the same page. Is it not preferable to delete the "Seekers and Finders (album)" page entirely, in favor of the one with the content? (I'm sorry if I'm missing something; I'm new here; thank you for helping me.)
Richard3120 -- Now that you mention it, yes, I would want the subtext to appear on mobile. But I do also see it on some albums from searches on itself -- the page with just the puzzle-piece globe and a search bar. How can I make that subtext happen in either or both those places?
Cloud atlas (talk) 03:39, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Redirects are WP:NOTBROKEN. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:54, 31 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you contribute to an album article

Hello, I'm new on here. I'd like to contribute to some album articles, but the Talk pages direct me to this page: "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums". I would like to, for example, add an executive producer credit and correct the Name in the Infobox on the following page Chill Out (John Lee Hooker album). Should I address such items here (on WikiProject Albums) or should I start discussions directly on the article Talk pages that I would like to contribute to? Thank you 2bImpeckable (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@2bImpeckable: If you post here, that will get more visibility than the talk page of the article. So for your first time out, it's wise to post here. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 22:59, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have discussed not including executive producers in the infobox, only producers. If you have a reliable source for the executive producer, in this case liner notes from the album or an entry in a comprehensive and reviewed source such as AllMusic or a review in a reputable publication, that's enough. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Koavf: @Walter Görlitz: Thank you for your feedback. I'll start a new topic on this page for my proposed edits. 2bImpeckable (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@2bImpeckable: No problem. I'm always happy to have a new editor here--it's a real joy. If you are unsure about a certain article, please feel free to ask me directly. Note also that you can make a draft. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:11, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion regarding the creation of redirects

There is a discussion at the Redirect WikiProject talk page that could use input from this project, as it concerns albums/songs and is thus in your purview. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 19:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Lee Hooker album articles

Don't Look Back (John Lee Hooker album)

The liner notes for the CD release (Shout Factory, cat no. 826663-10437) lists the producer credits as above.

Chill Out (John Lee Hooker album)

The Healer (album)

If the above points are agreeable, I will go ahead with these edits on the album articles. Thank you 2bImpeckable (talk) 18:26, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe that "executive producers" should not go in the infobox – see Walter Görlitz's reply above to you. You wouldn't need all those references – normally there is a "Personnel" section in the article, and a line saying "Credits adapted from the liner notes", so Kappus's name can just be added there with the rest of the personnel on the album (musicians, singers, producers, engineers, etc.) and the reference to the liner notes is a reliable enough source (I know Chill Out doesn't have this section, but it ought to). I can see that his name is mentioned on all three album sleeves as executive producer, so that would be proof enough of his involvement in them.
The Grammy Award was known as "Best Traditional Blues Performance" until 1992, so the title is correct for the time when The Healer won it. Richard3120 (talk) 19:50, 1 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard3120: Thanks for your feedback. I went ahead and made some of those edits to the articles, and added a summary of changes.

Mr. Lucky (John Lee Hooker album) is one other article I'd like to address a couple of items.

  • The US record label which released this album seems to need some clarification. While it is correct that a Mr. Lucky DVD was released on Classic, an imprint of Virgin, that release was a DVD-Audio disc only [2].
The primary label for the release in North America was Virgin / Charisma and its subsidiary, PointBlank Records. [3]
There does appear to be a Virgin Classics [4] label which appears to be focused on classical music, so I think this is another reason for the need to clarify the US record label. If agreeable, I would like to expand on the current text in the first paragraph regarding the record label and add the other Virgin subsidiaries to the info box - I don't see any concern with the UK label (Silvertone) which is already listed in the article.
  • There were some personnel whose names were misspelled per the liner notes, so I went ahead and made those edits and included references. Hopefully there aren't any concerns in doing this.

Thanks. 2bImpeckable (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


  1. ^ Nielsen Business Media, Inc. (15 March 1997). Billboard. Nielsen Business Media, Inc. pp. 51–. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  2. ^
  3. ^ SPIN Media LLC (December 1991). SPIN. SPIN Media LLC. pp. 1–.
  4. ^

I proposed a merger of the Back to the Future sountrack article into the parent article, "Back to the Future" two weeks ago. I invite you to comment at Talk:Back to the Future#Merger proposal. --George Ho (talk) 00:27, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finally - Unknown Parameters is empty

It's taken 9 months to get there, but finally Category:Pages using infobox album with unknown parameters is empty. There were 4500 articles containing template errors, leftover fields, defunct fields and made up fields; but they're now history, which is the main point. Thank you to whoever helped along the way, I could see the numbers change from time to time, but had no way of finding out who had fixed what. So you'll all be happy to know that I won't be flooding your Watchlist with edits... but... Doing these fixes has helped me spot a number of problems with the usage of the template on articles, with fields being re-purposed and information being crammed in one field when it should be split over two etc. but, they're a problem for later, first there are some errors still showing on the template error report that need manually fixing, then I'm going to re-scan all of my edits for the italics problem that surfaced during the edit run. After that I'll download a database dump and check how common the things I've spotted are. Thanks again to those that helped along the way. - X201 (talk) 07:44, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for taking this on too! Sergecross73 msg me 12:16, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed, thank you very much. The "Recorded" parameter was split only relatively recently into "Recorded" and "Venue" parameters, so there will be a lot of articles still with all the recording information under the first parameter, but it would be nice to know what are the other common problems that need to be fixed. Richard3120 (talk) 12:19, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed, thanks all for sorting this. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 17:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great job. Thanks. There's also the recent split of the previous/next fields. And for the record, Recorded was split into Recorded and Studio or Venue depending on whether it was a studio album or a live one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, yes, thank you Walter. Richard3120 (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[reply to Richard] Besides what shows up in the album monthly error report[1] and tracking categories, there are the album sections of unknown value for type and malformed table placement. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:26, 15 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Open RfC regarding a list of artists

I have opened an RfC regarding how a label's artists should be listed here. Any editor in this WikiProject is more than welcome to contribute. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would it be okay to consider reliable for Electronic music articles? We've been using it on the Monstercat article and related articles without problem for a while. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:59, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At first glance, in unsure. On one hand, looking at their "about us" page, it's good the have an established staff. On the other hand, it's less encouraging that no one seems to list any actual credentials other than "loving EDM" or "being a huge music fan" type stuff. I don't personally follow the genre though, so perhaps others have further insight? Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would ask at WP:RSN. They might have more input. Have to agree with Sergecross73 that this seems more like a hobby for the the staff. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Questions on albums without Allmusic ratings

Hey guys, I'm new to here but I am really curious about one question: While browsing Wikipedia, I found quite a lot of music albums are rated with 0/5 stars on Allmusic (or any other aggregate music rating site),(e.g.: ). But when I clicked into the album page on the rating site, turns out the album is actually not rated, therefore receiving a 0/5 score instead of because being a bad album. In such cases, shouldn't these albums be should be marked as unrated specifically, to prevent confusion about music quality of these albums? (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ Wow. Good spot. Those should be removed. They can be identified on Wikidata but there's no point in linking to a non-review of the page that just displays all the same information we do. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 17:44, 18 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only reason to link to AllMusic in that case is for track listings. It should not be used as a review. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RFC on Clinton Heylin's alternative recording dates for Van Morrison's The Philosopher's Stone

Is it appropriate for Wikipedia to place Heylin's dates on the track listing? Talk:The Philosopher's Stone (album)#RFC on recording dates. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3O requested at Talk:Monstercat

Anyone able to provide some feedback on a discussion I'm having with another user at Talk:Monstercat#WP:OR Monstercat errors? I've already hatted an off-topic discussion in the thread which includes my attempts at getting back on track, but I don't know how else to respond other than what I've already argued. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 16:53, 21 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nancy Ajram

A Nancy Ajram (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) fan has done a lot of editing to the BLP and associated articles. Some eyes would be appreciated. These are at AfD, and I would appreciate some input on notability.

Thanks. — JJMC89(T·C) 02:35, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the fan is interested in having them userified, you could suggest that, but currently, they do not seem to have what it takes for notability. The other articles have problems, but their sources seem good. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:53, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Type = other - What should it link to?

I've added type "other" to infobox album because the other field was getting mixed up with blank fields. This has now created the question, what should it link to? Currently I've linked it to Timeline of audio formats as a placeholder. The question is, what article best represents the oddball formats that will fall under this? e.g Things that aren't EPs but at the same time not albums, or albums that are both live and studio at the same time. Suggestions please. - X201 (talk) 18:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Other should not be used, just call it what it is being called in reliable sources. Longtype is an option for multi-type (studio/live) albums. More Life uses "playlist" and I don't see it creating any errors to the infobox. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:16, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Playlist isn't a valid entry for type, More Life is in the "Music infoboxes with unknown value for type" tracking category. Seeing as Playlist isn't a valid entry for the type field, what is? - X201 (talk) 07:44, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's just a tracking category for unknown values, not invalid values. It doesn't mean unknown values aren't allowed. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:55, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's just a tracking category that User: Koavf and myself have had to spend the last week tidying up because of any old value being entered into it. - X201 (talk) 19:21, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: No, it's a tracking category for incorrect or malformed values. That field is not a free-for-all. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 19:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Other" is a horrible option though and no different than using a "malformed" value. There is no such thing as "other" type of albums. Create something that is accurate based on what reliable sources call it or use the closest option that works. The "playlist" one has been used for months, so obviously it has been accepted. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:26, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I disagree that just because a problem has been here for [x] months then it is tacitly accepted or not a problem: there are uncited claims since 2009 on here and WP:SOURCE has been a policy since at least 2004 when I started editing here. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 21:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe I said if it's "based on what reliable sources call it". Specifically, regarding that article, there was some dispute on the use of "playlist" but it has remained stable for 3 months. Per WP:CON, "any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached." Of course, consensus can always change (through editing or discussion). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: If we allowed whatever into this field based on what reliable sources call it, then we would have a lot of "types" such as "posthumous album" and "Grammy Award-winning album" and "sophomore album". We have a set of options and if we need to expand that, that's fine but the field does not exist to allow whatever someone wants to put in there. If you put something that is not explicitly allowed as a type, then the template will generate the category and it should be fixed. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 22:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your examples aren't even "types" of albums. We're talking about a type of album that doesn't fit into the current options and wanting to put "other", which isn't better than using what reliable sources actually call it. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:10, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But that's the point. There are types like that. Adding a single use type to the template for every possible option is a non-starter. That's why we have other, so that there's somewhere to put titles that fail to find a home in the thirteen other types. - X201 (talk) 18:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: But "types" of albums are just whatever we say are "types" of albums. I have personally seen two of these in an infobox, so someone thought it was a "type" of album. There is nothing about the given example that makes it not a studio album. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 23:25, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not what we say, it's what reliable sources say. The conversation here is about the use of "other" as a type, "playlist" was an example of how the field was being used because it had been like that for a number of months. If it's a studio album, so be it, but "other" as type for any album should not be an option. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:32, 26 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

John Coltrane

Not sure quite how to do this, or if I'm even posting in the right place. Wikipedia has a large number of pages devoted to individual jazz LPs, and for the most part, they're invaluable. The information is detailed and accurate. But I have problems with the pages created for a number of albums made by John Coltrane in the late 1950s, and released for the most part in the early 1960s, for Prestige Records. The information isn't wrong, exactly, but its tone strikes me as unnecessarily snarky and dismissive. I'll refer to one entry, the one for the album Black Pearls. The entry begins "Black Pearls is an album credited to jazz musician John Coltrane..." Why "credited to"? Other entries on albums by other jazz artists just say "an album by..." "Credited to" implies that this is somehow not how the album should be credited, but the session log for the date quite clearly lists it as a John Coltrane session. It goes on to say "It is assembled from the results of a single recording session," but you don't assemble something from a single recording session -- it was the recording session. And finally, at the end of each of these entries on Coltrane's Prestige albums, the writer adds "Prestige used unissued recordings to create new marketable albums without Coltrane's input or approval," as though this were some sort of unusual or high-handed thing, when in fact it's standard. Coltrane went into the studio, cut an album's worth of material, and Prestige released it on a schedule that they thought best. I don't want to just go ahead and rewrite all these, and get into some sort of jazz feud, but I thought it was worth bringing up. Tad Richards (talk) 14:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Tad RichardsReply[reply]

What you say is reasonable and you might want to wait for a bit more confirmation, but I would suggest that you be WP:BOLD and make the changes. I would also suggestion discussing this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:39, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I'd just say go ahead and try to fix it. I can't imagine "1950's Coltrane albums" get all that much traffic, so it could just be that no decent writers have really taken initiative to fix or improve the wording. If you start getting into disputes, where people don't approve of your changes, you can just try to hash out the specific issues on the respective article talk pages, and if you're in a dead-lock, you can always leave further messages here at WP:ALBUMS to ask for input. (Though you have to do it neutrally - something like "I'm looking for input on how to word a sentence", not something like "Hey guys, can you help me out and tell this guy he's wrong?" Sergecross73 msg me 15:03, 29 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Certification definitions in Canada

Certification definitions in Canada changed around the middle of the year. Eurohunter (talk) 08:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eurohunter: it would be better to post this at Template talk:Certification Table Entry. Richard3120 (talk) 11:39, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Moved. Eurohunter (talk) 11:52, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Monstercat redirects

Say, if anyone is able to find enough resources related to any of these redirects I created to turn them into articles, please do so. For example, I know Harry Shotta is notable for beating Eminem's record for most words spoken in a song, but if it fails WP:BLP1E, I'm not against leaving it a redirect. Please also see the following section, which is related.

And yes, I know some redirects were titles of previously deleted articles, but is it better to have them as redirects to more related topics rather than making articles out of them? jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 03:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This has been moved from WP:WPMU to the more active WikiProject within the music category for a better response. In addendum to this, I also notice a lot of redirects to the Monstercat article where the artist in question is not mentioned in the article, but has been mentioned in previous revisions. Would anyone be willing to help me find better targets for these subjects, writing articles if notability can be established, or sending them to WP:RFD? Keep in mind much of these redirects were made by me, as I described above. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 00:55, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the problem is that even the articles that the redirects go to are of borderline notability themselves, they're mostly obscure dance producers/DJs... I don't see many of these redirects being created as articles any time soon. Richard3120 (talk) 16:39, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Notability concerns

About 3 months ago, I withdrew an AfD I opened for Notaker, an article created out of a COI from a previous redirect, as sources emerged to keep the page up. The user who created the article from the redirect has since been indeffed for username policy violations. Several months later, one of the websites used a source in the article, Your EDM, was deemed as potentially unreliable by Sergecross73 at WP:RSN. Looking at the article again today, I'm still concerned about notability on this musician, and was hoping someone would open another AFD discussion for the article. Even I don't see any of the listed reliable sources talking about him. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:53, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ships in the Night by Vicki Lawrence

The article I created for Ships in the Night (Vicki Lawrence album) by Vicki Lawrence should not be deleted, so I have to remind you that the article for that album should not be for deletion. Thank you.

Signed ~~88ui7~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88ui7 (talkcontribs) 00:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@88ui7: Please provide a valid reason why it should be kept, and provide sources with significant coverage of the subject. I also recommend making your case at the AfD discussion in question with a Keep vote. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:34, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Removing collapsibility per accessibility

I have taken out the collapsed option from {{Track listing}} due to accessibility concerns. Note that the vast majority of instances are collapsing one to three bonus tracks (e.g. one of hundreds of examples: Metallica_(album)#Track_listing). That is not really saving anyone much in the way of scrolling and creating a lot of pointless clicks to expand. In a minority of cases, the track listing template was hiding something like a second disc of a live show or even sometimes the entire contents of a track listing for a box set--I'm not sure what the purpose is of even having a list if you don't display it. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 20:02, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Koavf: However, it has been the consensus somewhere along the line to collapse non-default track listings due to the fact they are not the norm/space they take up (perhaps on WikiProject Music, I would assume). Some pages have a dozen or more track listing templates on them and now your edit to Module:Track listing has made them all display by default. Your edit should be undone as you did not achieve consensus for such a wide-reaching change that affects thousands upon thousands of pages. Ss112 00:48, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm confused as to how collapsing a single track listing saves any space. We should not have collapsible lists as they are an impediment to users with a variety of medical conditions and they are not accessible to users without script functionality in their browsers. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:07, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I get where you're coming from, but I think it's a controversial change and some pages for box sets that contain something like 20 discs each with a full track listing being automatically expanded will probably run into wider opposition from the music-editing community. Ss112 01:43, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hence I posted here, in order to solicit feedback and make others aware. ―Justin (koavf)TCM 03:22, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I oppose the removal of the collapsibility option. If a track listing is collapsed it doesn't mean that it is not accessible, it is just one click away. It takes more time to scroll down 20 or 30 lines of script about multiple editions of the main recording than to click and open a list. It was abundantly remarked in various discussions how the focus of an article should be on the first and main edition of an album, with bonus tracks and later editions accessory to the main treatment. If you are writing about a successful album of the 70s, which had dozens of different re-issues, should we have every track listing displayed at length? I don't think so! There is Discogs for this and Wikipedia does a different service. Of course the collapsibility option should be used judiciously and it should not hide fundamental content. In compilation albums spanning multiple discs it is wrong to use it. Extra discs on CD editions should never be hidden. On the contrary, I think that to show the extra live bonus track of a remote edition of an album is good for completists, but it should not be displayed like the original track listing. If the concern is browsers without script functionality, the collapsibility option can probably be programmed to be script-dependant and be automatically disabled in those browsers. Lewismaster (talk) 07:31, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also oppose the removal of the option. All sorts of content is collapsed (e.g. large data tables, large images, minutiae in infoboxes), so disabling it in just this template would have basically no effect on the accessibility of the website as a whole; and if someone is indeed having trouble using collapsible content for whatever reason (I think this would be exceptionally rare since screen readers don't care whether content is collapsed or not AFAIK) then they would probably have JavaScript disabled across their browser anyway. Jc86035 (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I also oppose it. Yes, much of the time its used for these "1-3 bonus tracks", there's still a number of articles that use it to collapse alternate tracklistings, bonus discs that come with re-issues, DVD tie-ins, etc, that contain far more tracks, and yet, should still probably be collapsed. (Something like The Sky Moves Sideways comes to mind.) If you want to start a new discussion tot come up with a consensus to restrict its use in certain cases, go for it, but I don't think outright removal is the right choice when there are situations that its helpful in. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 6 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heads up about Billboard website

FYI, while I was creating an article and looking up chart positions, I noticed that, unless I'm doing something wrong or its temporary, Billboard has redone its website, breaking the links to the sources that verify charting positions for albums/songs.

The links still sort of work - I mean, for example, checking the ref that once verified that Breaking Benjamin's Dark Before Dawn topped the Billboard 200, is supposed to link to a page that now look like this, and yet, now just links to the generic band page at Billboard like - which can still indirectly get you to the charting position, but now it takes some research/clicks instead.

So, not catastrohpic, leaves a ton of sources that technically need fixing. I'm not necessarily requesting such a monumental task, just making sure that people are aware of the situation. I figured it could affect people's efforts to determine notability, for example. Sergecross73 msg me 17:20, 4 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think this has been brought up at Template:Single chart or Template:Album chart, hopefully someone there will look into it. Richard3120 (talk) 22:54, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion re: categorizing artists by genre

I started a discussion a while back proposing we stop categorizing all albums by artists by genre. There was some support for this, but now I'm having trouble finding the discussion in the archives. I keep finding artist categories that aren't quite right, so I'd like to revisit this discussion and submit a formal request for comment. Does any project member recall this discussion and know where it lives? ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:44, 9 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Another Believer: Are you suggesting (e.g.) removing Category:R.E.M. albums from Category:Alternative rock albums by American artists? ―Justin (koavf)TCM 01:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ALbums by English language.

Somebody has raised the point that this project should be notified of an ongoing CfD/CfR discussion whether the following and similar album related cats should be container cats. English Language albums --Richhoncho (talk) 08:49, 10 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FAC for Segundo Romance

I have nominated Segundo Romance as a [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Segundo Romance/archive1 |featured article candidate]]. Please feel free to drop any feedback about the article on the FAC. Thanks in advance! Erick (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Women in Red November contest open to all

Women in Red logo.svg
Announcing Women in Red's November 2017 prize-winning world contest
Robinson projection SW.jpg

Contest details: create biographical articles for women of any country or occupation in the world: November 2017 WiR Contest

Read more about how Women in Red is overcoming the gender gap: WikiProject Women in Red

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Ipigott (talk) 15:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just curious, as I'm not very familiar with the website, and probably for good reason, they closed down in 2007, a year before I even joined Wikipedia, but has this one every been very closely evaluated for reliability? Or did it just kinda get grandfathered in from the lax early days of Wikipedia?

For background, I was cleaning up the Seether article page a little bit, and was checking through the sources for the genre nu metal to see if they were legit, as that's not really a claim I've commonly seen made for the band, and looking over the actual article, they also made the rather dubious claim that Hoobastank's love ballad "The Reason" was also nu metal. I then came to WP:MUSIC/SOURCES to see that it was on the RS list.

Now, usually I wouldn't challenge a source's reliability on something like this, but since like I said, my usual ways of evaluating source reliability (looking over to see if they have an established staff, staff credentials, editorial policies, etc) were coming up empty since most attempts to look around the website resulted in broken links to error pages.

Again, I don't mean for this to be a WP:GENREWARRING argument or anything like that- if its considered reliable, so be it. But in my experience, that source had a number of claims that I haven't commonly seen replicated elsewhere, so I thought I'd check.

Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 20:05, 20 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discogs and should be acceptable sources when Allmusic has gaps

I disagree that Discogs and should be sources to avoid. Sure have Allmusic as a first priority reference, but when a release is not available on AllMusic, then these other sources should be able to be used when an editor is able to determine that the reference is indisputable. When compiling discographies of older artists and artists of previous generations, there are many releases that are not on AllMusic, particularly rarer releases. This leaves a gap in the ability to add an online reference to these items. I have found that many of the items missing from AllMusic are documented well in Discogs and/or with images of the front and back cover and pictures of the vinyl labels for both sides. Even if you disregard the usually good track-listing, the pictures don't lie. So I think this guideline needs to be reviewed. I think it would be better to have a guideline to allow use of references from Discogs and where that reference meets a standard of documentation so as documentation matches the details of the pictured items. As long as it meets that standard, it is indisputable and I think it should qualify as suitable for use as a reference. AusChartMan (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well, I can see how that would be useful, but how you reconcile an argument like that with policies like WP:RS and WP:USERG, of which at the very least Discogs clearly violates. (I'm unfamiliar with 45cat personally.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If all that is being used from Discogs and 45cat is information (track listing, running times, writers, studios, dates, etc.) from the images (photos) of the actual releases, then those sites aren't really being used as references – they are just image sources and the reference is the album, single, etc. itself. This may be handled using Template:Cite AV media notes, with a link to the image, such as:
BTW, AllMusic is only RS for their professional reviews. Sometimes, the release dates, running times, writers, etc., are wrong and often, when there are multiple editions of an album, it isn't clear which they are using.
Ojorojo (talk) 17:13, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In addition to the Reviews, the AllMusic Bios and Credits are fine too - I've never found any issues with their prose or credits. But yes, I do try to find other sources for the stuff like release dates, run-times, etc in the side boxes, as I have seen errors with them before too. Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, their professional bios are fine, but I've seen several errors in the songwriting credits for older material. For anyone preparing a GA or FA, I suggest double checking with another RS. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:04, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you put to WP:ALBUMAVOID? Because acccording to RS noticeboard, Tenebrae says "Forbes "contributors" are not Forbes editorial staff, but suppliers of user-generated content." (Forbes is just a printed magazine btw) (talk) 14:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This discussion has been moved from my User Talk page to this page where better feedback can be provided. The reason this IP came to me was because I was the last editor to edit WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES when I was only responding to another discussion on RSN. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:26, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WikiProject Video Games has the same stance on Forbes as the IP states, for the same reasons - their "contributors" are more or less amateur user-bloggers, not actual Forbes staff. But actual Forbes staff would be okay. We should probably handle it like how we do with Sputnik Music, where we don't allow the user reviews. I'm not sure how much this affects the music subject area though: While Forbes staff rarely write about video games, their user contributors do frequently, so its something that is constantly needing to be enforced. I'm not actually sure how much Forbes contributors write about music. I write/maintain a lot of rock music related articles, but they don't seem to come up much in my experience. Sergecross73 msg me 17:47, 27 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To add to sources list

Following on from TheAmazingPeanuts post above, I was taking a look at the current list of reliable sources, and I wanted to add some. Most are not contentious, I think, but as ever, I should get consensus first.

Not contentious:

  • Creem – no explanation necessary, arguably the second most famous music magazine of the last 60 years in the US, after Rolling Stone, and many highly regarded writers have worked for the magazine.
  • Melody Maker – was probably considered the UK's second most important weekly music paper after NME. Started out in 1926 as a jazz paper, but by the 1950s was firmly into rock'n'roll and pop, and later alternative music. Folded in 2000 – no online archive available.
  • Sounds – was the third of the big music weeklies in the UK, and tended to cover hard rock and metal more than NME and Melody Maker. Notable former writers included Vivien Goldman and Tim Lott. Closed down in 1991 when United Newspapers sold off most of their consumer magazines – no online archive.
  • Let It Rock – only ran for three years in the early 1970s in the UK, but featured detailed interviews and record reviews.
  • Muzik – UK dance music magazine founded by former Melody Maker writers Ben Turner and Push, ran for 99 issues from 1995 to 2003. Unlike other dance magazines, the entire collection is available online at useful for interviews and reviews from when the UK's clubbing culture was at its height.
  • Vox – ran from 1990 to 1998 as a monthly companion to NME, published by the same company IPC Media.
  • Musikexpress – formerly MusikExpress Sounds, this has been Germany's top music magazine for decades, and is published by the Axel Springer SE group. An archive of past interviews, album reviews and other content is available at, but you need a subscription to access it.

Possibly contentious:

  • Record Mirror and Smash Hits – that the magazines were produced by major publishing companies and included full editorial staff is not in question... the question is whether they are considered too lightweight to be regarded as serious sources. Nevertheless, it could be argued that Smash Hits in particular was more in tune with the music scene during the 1980s than any other music mag, and both magazines certainly covered indie/alternative as well as chart pop.
  • ZigZag – UK music magazine that ran from 1969 to 1986. Never really concentrated much on reviewing records, but contains lots of lengthy interviews with artists from the underground rock scene in the early 1970s under founder Pete Frame and John Tobler, and then with punk artists in the late 1970s under the stewardship of Kris Needs.
  • Classic Pop, Long Live Vinyl and Vintage Rock – all published by Anthem Publishing, these relatively new magazines in the UK have sprung up as part of the trend for capitalising on legacy or nostalgia, focusing on different music eras of the past. Their reviews sections aren't up to the standard of Rolling Stone, Q or Mojo, but in Classic Pop at least, the interview with the cover stars each month are long and detailed (usually five or six full pages) – regular writers for Classic Pop include Wyndham Wallace, who has also written for The Guardian, Uncut and The Quietus, and Paul Lester, longtime senior writer and reviews editor for Melody Maker. Richard3120 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • In a general sense, most print media from the past generally make the RS requirements - what it takes to put together a physical magazine that was widely circulated generally required it to be a serious group of professions with credentials and polices, unlike the current age, where just about anyone can start their own music blog in a day. I wonder about the practicality of adding a couple of these - not sure how many are going to happen to have access to a print magazine that ran a couple years in the 70s - but I don't oppose their inclusion on the list. Sergecross73 msg me 05:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States FLC

I have nominated List of best-selling Latin albums in the United States as a featured list candidate. I'd greatly appreciate any feedback! Erick (talk) 17:18, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vertigo (Eden album) is nominated for deletion

If anyone is willing to provide feedback on the matter, the discussion is here. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 01:57, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Verdict on Pidgeons & Planes

I've opened this subsection up for Sergecross73 once he determines the reliability of this website as a source, as he said he'd do in the AfD. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 02:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable or not, the source in question isn't nearly long enough to be considered significant coverage. It doesn't do anything other than name-drop the album. Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HotNewHipHop and Salute Magazine

Do HotNewHipHop [2] and Salute Magazine [3] count as reliable sources because they do published news, album reviews and other things. HotNewHipHop have been used in multiple hip hop related articles as an reliable source, but it's not on WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. Are these sources are reliable or not? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suggest asking at WP:RSN instead. Walter Görlitz (talk)
@Walter Görlitz: Sure, thanks. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its fine to ask here - WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES's talk page redirects here after all - it's just that ALBUMS hasn't been all that active lately. I can take a look at them shortly though at least. Sergecross73 msg me 01:22, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but you'll likely get better traction there. Walter Görlitz (talk) 21:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Indeed. Just make sure he realized it wasn't wrong to ask here, it's just been a little slow lately. Sergecross73 msg me 21:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Salute Mag - Unreliable - Unless I'm missing it, I'm not seeing anything that would help argue it's reliable - there doesn't appear to be any staff page, or stated policies like editorial, ethics, or review policies. In the few writer pages I spot checked, they tended to either link to a page that said nothing about them other than providing a picture of them and showing the article's theyve written, or a vague comment or two about their personal interests - nothing in the way of actual credentials. Sergecross73 msg me 21:26, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Hot New Hip Hop - Weak unreliable - They at least have a dedicated staff page, though again, nothing really in the way of credentials of their writers or editorial policy appears to be present on the page. Sergecross73 msg me 21:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • By all means though, let me know if I've missed crucial details, or if RSN disagrees with me. I didn't have a ton of time to review them, and I'm open to reconsidering. Sergecross73 msg me 21:32, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sergecross73: Well I don't know much about Salute Magazine, but as I pointed out before, HotNewHipHop have been use in multiple hip hop related articles before and nobody has never pointed out it's an reliable source or not. The reason why I make this discussion is because an editor named, Ninjinian, added these sources in the Without Warning article, right here. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless you're talking about an article that's survived a peer review or GA/FA review, the fact that it's used isn't really worth anything. For example, in the video game world, consensus at WP:VG/S forbids the use of Gamefaqs for WP:USERG reasons. But because the website is so popular and covers so many games that are hard to find sources for, it still shows up relatively frequently in articles. But that doesn't make it right/reliable. It's just that people add it faster than it can be removed. Sergecross73 msg me 02:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sergecross73: I'm confused, are you saying that the sources need to be remove because the sources are not reliable for Wikipedia? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion is that they're unreliable sources. You don't have to remove them yet, I could be overruled by consensus or persuaded. Do you have an argument in favor of their reliability? Sergecross73 msg me 23:30, 9 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sergecross73: Like I said before, I don't know much about Salute Magazine, but I do know more about HotNewHipHop. In my opinion, I think HotNewHipHop is an reliable source, because I view it as similar to another online magazine, HipHopDX. Just like HipHopDX in my opinion, the website gives album sales updates [4] and album reviews [5]. The website gives mostly hip hop related news, which it's kinda like what HipHopDX doing. This the best way how to explain HotNewHipHop, everybody have different opinions about the website, which is why it needed to be discussed. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 14:03, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All you did was describe what website is. The act of writing album reviews doesn't make a source inherently a reliable source. It makes them...a music website. Sergecross73 msg me 22:34, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sergecross73: I'm not that good at explaining things, I think we should start an RfC to hear what others think of these websites. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 17:37, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As Walter mentioned, WP:RSN would be the best place to ask for further input. It's not like it's some big dispute that requires an RFC for solving. You asked a question, and I was the only one bothered to give their two cents so far. Sergecross73 msg me 01:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sergecross73: I did post the same thing at WP:RSN right here, but nobody have responded yet. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 23:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would more-or-less agree with Sergecross73. I was going to disagree with him on HotNewHipHop but then I started looking at content. First, artist profiles. I picked a letter at random and an artist whose name I recognize that was near the top: I then looked up that same artist at AllMusic: I noticed two things immediately: the AllMusic bio is vastly larger than the HotNewHipHop bio, and it also has a byline. I also like the performer's image better in the latter, but that doesn't help it meet RS. So their bios fail RS. I notice that there is a news tab on the profile, and it appears that the news entries do meet RS. They have a byline and they seem to link to a page listing other staff entries. That's quite common. The reviews are written by the same staff as the ones who write the news. I would argue that they're reliable as well. But now you have general staff writers rather than reviewers, and that throws the whole thing into question. RSN usually addresses things in this way as well. In other words, what do you want to use from the site and where? The other site fails at the level of having a page that clearly identifies staff and its editorial policy. We can't assume it's a RS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Walter Görlitz: So you saying HotNewHipHop have some things that consider reliable than Salute Magazine, right? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 18:26, 11 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Based on the rules that I have employed when engaged in discussions at RSN, I would say that the sources with bylines might be considered reliable. I'd like the specialists to comment more in it. For me, it all depends on whether the authors are actually under editorial supervision. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:18, 12 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: I did start a discussion at WP:RSN as you said right here, but nobody didn't respond to it. The discussion got removed automatically do to lack of activity. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:27, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has been known to happen. Looks like we have this discussion. Does it solve your problem? Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: Well for the most part, you and Sergecross73 pointed out HotNewHipHop have its staff members page and the staff write the news as well, which is considered reliable. But is it reliable enough to use on Wikipedia? TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Reliable enough for what? It's reliable enough for release dates. It's reliable enough for some other content. I would use it with caution with BLP issues. What exactly are you intending to use it for? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't recommend it - it seems like the type of source that would be removed if anyone's looking at sources with any scrutiny. Considering how there's few participants discussing here though, my prediction would be that, in practice, its probably the type of source that you could use and get away with it in casual and non-contentious situations, but likely get reverted if you're working on high traffic/high importance/GA/FA candidate type articles. Sergecross73 msg me 15:14, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: What I saying is, the source is okay to use as an reliable source for some content, such as single releases [6] and album reviews [7]. Let you know I didn't add these sources, it was other editors who been adding them, especially in hip hop related articles. You can see them in articles like, Mr. Davis, Without Warning and Pretty Girls Like Trap Music, in the critical reception section. Sergecross73 has pointed out the sources wouldn't be use in high traffic/high importance/GA/FA candidate type articles, since there are better sources then HotNewHipHop, do to not being in WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES and most editors don't know the website. But I see editors adding this website to articles lately and none of them haven't been removed yet. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those look fine. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Walter Görlitz: Oops, I use the wrong source on that recent Gucci Mane album review, that's from HipHopDX, not from HotNewHipHop. I sure you got the point and since you see no problem with using HotNewHipHop as an reliable source, since it do have it's own staff members page and have some content that considered as reliable. Just making sure we on the same page on HotNewHipHop. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]


A change to the MetroLyrics entry at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES#List of unreliable sources (with link to relevant discussion) is proposed at WT:WikiProject Songs#MetroLyrics. Please add your comments there. —Ojorojo (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Janet Jackson (album) is undergoing a GA reassessment. Most problems have been tackled, however, the article does not meet criteria 3a, as it does not address the main aspects of the topic - there is almost nothing about production of the album, and little about critical reception on release. The reassessment is on hold for seven days to allow time to build the article. SilkTork (talk) 01:52, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another Daily Mail discussion

I recently used a Daily Mail source in the reception section of this album, but it was removed with a WP:ALBUMAVOID rationale. Thing is, that section says nothing about the Daily Mail being inappropriate. I'm no fan of that particular newspaper, but have always understood there are circumstances in which its use is acceptable, such as in the case of citing an album review. What do others think? It its use ok here, or should it be avoided? This is Paul (talk) 18:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Did you look at the listing below ALBUMAVOID, which lists DM as unreliable? Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now, but while I agree the DM is unreliable for news stories, I feel this would not affect the reliability of an album review, which is an individual's opinion rather than that of the newspaper. In general, the use of album reviews in tabloids (and for films and television shows for that matter) seems to be commonplace, so this is a discussion worth having, particularly as we tend to dismiss all tabloid journalism as unreliable. This is Paul (talk) 18:49, 23 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could be wrong, but I feel like this is one of the sources that has been deemed unreliable on a higher level than just the album/music Wijiprojects. Sergecross73 msg me 22:03, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Daily Mail is not a reliable source, as such we don't use it as a reliable source on Wikipedia for anything other than comments on itself. If you think of it as like the man in the pub. He isn't a reliable source, so what he says about anything, including his opinion on music, movies or mattresses, is not to be used on Wikipedia. The Daily Mail is like the man in the pub. SilkTork (talk) 01:57, 29 November 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod talk 13:00, 3 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Background section confusion

I'm concerned about what I interpret as confusion ove over album's background section. A great example is the 1989 (Taylor Swift album) article, where the background sections seems almost entirely composed of information about her previous album and promotion of it. I also saw similar themes on other (mostly pop albums). Really these sections should be about what led to the development of the album more so than what they did previously. Any ideas how to curb this practice? --Deathawk (talk) 23:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Catalog numbering systems for single records" article input

Hi there. I would love to get some more input at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catalog numbering systems for single records. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:39, 15 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Limited release Record Store Day single - official album single or not?

Should a limited pressing of a Record Store Day release be considered a single from an album for purposes of the album infobox? To me, this would seem to be a type of release that doesn't constitute an official single since it's only to promote a merchandising holiday and is only available in limited quantities. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 22:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you link to what you're referring to? To me, the context would matter. If it's ten songs of newly recorded material, I'd say yes. If it was seven demos and acoustic variants or something, I'd say no. Sergecross73 msg me 23:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Specifically, I'm thinking about " The Blackout" by U2. It was released as a limited edition Record Store Day single (the album version of the song on side A, and a remix on side B). Would that make it a single from Songs of Experience? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talkcontributions) 02:58, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would be a promotional single, but that's not what we include in infoboxes. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I agree, I'd probably classify it as promotional single too. Sergecross73 msg me 13:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion at Talk:Zodiac (film)

I started the discussion at Talk:Zodiac (film)#Notability of Zodiac (soundtrack), where I invite you to discuss Zodiac (soundtrack). George Ho (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We need YOU!


Hello WikiProject Albums,

Unregistered editors cannot create articles on Wikipedia, but they can use the articles for creation process to submit drafts that registered editors can either accept and publish or decline. WikiProject Articles for creation is looking for experienced editors who want to partake in this peer review process. If you have what it takes to get involved, then please take a look at the reviewing instructions. To discuss specific AfC reviews, do so freely on the designated talk page.

There is currently a backlog of over 3400 drafts (0 very old).

If you know an editor who may be willing to help out, please use the template you are currently reading {{subst:WPAFCInvite}} to draw attention to this WikiProject. Many hands make light work!

Worldbruce (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Editors willing to review a variety of drafts are especially welcome. If you're interested only in reviewing certain topics, that still helps. At least 11 pending drafts are about albums (are in the intersection of Category:Pending AfC submissions and Category:Draft-Class Album articles). Over 2000 pending drafts have not yet had a WikiProject added, so more may be in the scope of this WikiProject. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:43, 19 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Links to pending album drafts:

Title Page ID Namespace Size (bytes) Last change
Girl Talk 53686120 118 2440 20171230044647
Midnight Music in London 54145818 118 3735 20171230041941
Acoustic Highway 55362865 118 5162 20171230042401
Play Dead 55498976 118 3886 20171230041805
Entertainment 55583433 118 4118 20171230040752
Yellow 55836410 118 4772 20171230041701
Subversive Paradigm 55894182 118 2705 20171230042344
Feel Infinite - Album 55914619 118 4056 20171230042708
My Life 55959025 118 22823 20171230043853
My Zone 56075323 118 4058 20171230045545

Regenerate this table.

--Worldbruce (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Amarte Es un Placer (album) FAC

I have nominated Amarte Es un Placer (album) for FA. I would appreciate any comments in the FAC. Thanks! Erick (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Reliable and unreliable sources list

I'm reviewing Marilyn Manson (band) for GA, here, and I asked the nominator if there was a list of reliable music sources. They pointed me at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, which is very helpful. However, since I am not allowed to just take a WikiProject's word for it that a source is reliable, can I suggest that you add a "link to discussion" column to the "reliable sources" table that shows any discussion of reliability. This obviously isn't necessary for the ones that wouldn't be questioned in the first place, such as Entertainment Weekly or NME, but it would be helpful for sources that aren't immediately obviously reliable. For example, is on the list as reliable; if I could see how that was established it would make reviewing a lot quicker.

The full list of sources I asked about, in case anyone can shed light on any of them, is:

  • -- appears to be a fan site
  • -- per the disclaimer page it accepted user submissions, for example
  • -- appears to be a fan site
  • as the archive of Ground Control Magazine -- for the website the question is whether it can be trusted to reliably archive the text; the underlying source in question is the magazine, which I am asking about as well
  • -- appears to be a fan site
  • -- appears to be a fan site
  •, and which seems to redirect to it
  • -- per their about page the contributions are by independent bloggers
  • -- clearly reliable at some points in its history, but not at all points -- see Film Threat for the history

Thanks for any input on any of these. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:00, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd recommend searching the archive of this talk page. I know I've been involved in a number of discussions, like the Metal Sucks one, on this very talk page over the years. Sergecross73 msg me 23:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alright, so I work a lot in the hard rock area of music on Wikipedia, and no one else is biting, so I can give my passing thoughts on a number of them:
  1. Metal Sucks, despite the name sounding a bit unprofessional, had a pretty good discussion about its reliability. Per here, there's good reasoning to consider it reliable.
  2. Metal Injection per its article, has ties to Sirius XM staff and has been recognized by places like MTV, so I've felt its reliable, and haven't had any issues arise.
  3. I try to avoid "Alternative Nation" (no relation to this Alternative Nation) because they go pretty hard on the click-bait articles, and jump to some conclusions that, if Wikipedia editors themselves made them, would be slammed for original research/speculation. That being said, they have had some good exclusive interviews that have been helpful in a few articles, so I hate to put them in the "no" pile. I treat them more like a WP:PRIMARY source, or a "last resort" source.
  4. I've used Blistering and Music Feeds, the PRP, and Metal Insider in the past, without issue, though I never gave them a thorough run-through. Music Feeds has been in the music industry for 10 years, and Blistering for 20 years, for what its worth.
  5. I try to stay away from CrypticRock, because I've found typos, errors, and suspect content. (For example, this review has always been baffling to me, for a number of reasons.)
  6. UndertheGun already has a link next to it showing that the last consensus on it was that it was unreliable, per here.
  • Feel free to correct me, but I think most of the rest of the list would probably fall into "fansite/obscure blog" territory, and not be considered an RS. Sergecross73 msg me 14:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Think Bloody Disgusting is a reliable source as per [[8]] Atlantic306 (talk) 15:25, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good find. And considering how "theatrical" and horror-related an act like Marilyn Manson (band) is, it seems like it would fall under their authority. (Opposed to, lets say, an act like One Direction.) Sergecross73 msg me 16:31, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I find One Direction far more horrifying than Marilyn Manson... Richard3120 (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Serious commment – have we ever come to a definitive conclusion about acharts, mentioned by Mike Christie above? I've been looking at some archive discussions, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music/Archive, and the opinion seems to that some of its charts are reliable, but others aren't. Richard3120 (talk) 18:06, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Huh. I've never heard of it. I don't recall ever discussing it or even seeing it in article's I've edited either. It's hard to find out anything about it either. Outside of a very brief contact us page, I'm not seeing anything about the website itself. No "about us" page, "staff page", or anything to that capacity, unless I'm missing it. Outside of spot-checking a few chart positions I knew off the top of my head (which did come back correct) I'm not sure how to make a call. The images are user-uploaded, and the bios are ripped from Last FM, so those definitely wouldn't be usable. Sergecross73 msg me 18:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks to all above for this discussion; it's very helpful. For the GA review I'm doing I've decided to go ahead and accept the ones listed by Sergecross73 as reliable, and have asked the nominator to remove the others. As those of you who nominate at FAC will already know, a WikiProject's opinion is useful information at FAC but isn't definitive, so for the reliable ones, including a link to a discussion in your table of reliable sources would really be helpful. Thanks again. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:31, 11 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

More source questions

Since I got helpful answers to my question (above), I'm back to ask about more sources from another GA review. The article is chillwave and the review is here. Can anyone comment on the reliability of these two?

  • -- I see it's listed in the WP:ALBUMS sources, but there's no discussion -- any information about what makes it reliable?

Thanks for any help. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem - I've helped maintain the WP:VG source page and discussions for years, and lately I've been trying to keep discussions going in the music content area as well.
  • In regards to Dummy mag, it looks like it was discussed in 2014 and had a 3 to 0 consensus in favor of reliability. It looks like the main reason was that it was founded by the same people who founded 90's print magazine Jockey Slut, which checks out. Much of the time, if you've got your stuff together enough to get a magazine hard copy printed, there's a good argument for meeting our RS requirements. I agree with their conclusions, I would have been a fourth person to support this one.
  • On the contrary, it looks like Tiny Mix Tapes started off as a self-published Geocities page according to it's Wikipedia article and according to its about us page, is written by people who "writing isn't their primary job", and there's a huge list of writers who write under pseudonyms, without any credentials listed. I'd be open to counter-arguments, but based on this, I'd be more inclined to say "unreliable". Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks -- this is very helpful. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem. I'll have to start adding some of these discussions to the main list. I mean, it'd be a massive undertaking, but I can at least add them as people bring them up... Sergecross73 msg me 14:42, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See this discussion; Lingzhi is working on a script to help with some aspects of source reviewing. A wishlist item in that discussion is to be able to see if any of the URLs in an article match a machine-readable list of reliable (or non-reliable) sources. Perhaps if a common format were used across WikiProjects, a list could be created that, in conjunction with a tool, allowed a reviewer to (a) quickly identify possibly problematic sources, and (b) quickly skip over definitely reliable sources. It wouldn't completely substitute for human review of the sources, but it could be a significant speed up. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

() The script is progressing nicely, but what you are discussing here is the most awkward thing of all to do in your wishlist, I think. The only way I would know how to do it would be hardcoding a list (probably a large one) in the script and spinning through it, looking for a match to journal or website name. That is very very klunky; untenable from a maintenance point of view. Someone better than I knows how to pass info like this around.... now that I think about it, perhaps/probably that item should be done in an entirely different script or by a bot...? Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 14:58, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I work on identifying reliable sources here and at WP:VG/S, but have no experience working with bots/scripts/tools, so I have no idea of the viability of these things. I do think I'm going to start cleaning up the source page a bit - organization, linking to discussions, maybe initiating some discussions on sources that are unclear, etc. I'll work on that manually, and you guys can decide if any bots/tools should be part of it or not. Sergecross73 msg me 15:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recruit new editors for your project?

Happy new year! I've been building a tool to help WikiProjects identify and recruit new editors to join and contribute, and collaborated with some WikiProject organizers to make it better. We also wrote a Signpost article to introduce it to the entire Wikipedia community.

Right now, we are ready to make it available to more WikiProjects that need it, and I’d like to introduce it to your project! If you are interested in trying out our tool, feel free to sign up. Bobo.03 (talk) 19:53, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Requesting input on music related RFCs

Hello, I've started RFCs on a couple of issues that have come up recently in the music related areas of Wikipedia. If anyone is interested in chiming in, your input would be much appreciated. The two discussions are:

  1. Photo use in music genre article infoboxes.
  2. Putting album years in navigation templates.

Any input would be appreciated, so we can come to a consensus on how to handle these situations. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:04, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Absolute Punk

Looking through the archives, there doesn't seem to ever have been any consensus to add it in the first place. Most discussions were about removing it, questioning it, or using it a reference point for other sources. It's hard to check now, since it was shutdown and went offline in 2016, but it sound like they did both staff and user reviews, but there doesn't seem to have been much in the way of credentials in being a staff member.

I don't know if it's worth adding to the unreliable source, as its no longer usable, but I personally support removing it from the reliable list. I don't think we should be recommending its use. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, evidence is not available for including on either list Atlantic306 (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thought Yeepsi might want to take a look at this - they use this site as a source frequently. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 16:29, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to staff member Drew Beringer, he was hired after submitting a review to the website's founder after they asked for new reviewers.[9] I found some of the staff that have worked with other publications/companies: Thomas Nassiff has worked for The Independent Florida Alligator and Jonathan Bautts has worked for Campus Circle and the Orange County Register. Aaron Mook has worked for Erie Reader. Anna Maria has worked for Substream Magazine. Drew Beringer has worked for NUVO. Anna Acosta has worked for Alternative Press, Substream Magazine and Infectious Magazine. Blake Solomon has worked at Merkley + Partners and Campbell Ewald. Becky Kovach has worked for Property of Zack. Yeepsi (talk) 22:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is it required that previous publications be reliable as prerequisites for consideration? Because if so, Kovach still isn't reliable. It's cool to see Mook hails from my hometown, though! dannymusiceditor Speak up! 00:26, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its not that they all need to come other reliable sources, but it's good that many do, to establish the staff/editors generally have credentials. You're right that the POZ experience doesn't help the RS argument, the rest generally do. That argument is good enough for me, I'm fine leaving it on the RS list now. Sergecross73 msg me 01:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good to see. I was worried because it is a frequent source of our Wikiproject's information. Thanks Yeepsi, I wouldn't have found all this. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:01, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I meantioned this to Yeepsi - I'm not trying to be a bad guy and cause trouble, I'm trying to improve our documentation and rationales, so it stands up in the future for notability and sourcing discussions and stuff like that. I'd prefer to be wrong on some of these. That's why I'm asking for input first. Sergecross73 msg me 02:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Loudwire is a website used pretty heavily used in the hard rock/metal areas of Wikipedia. I definitely think they are reliable, but there wasn't much in the past of a centralized discussion on it, so I wanted to document a discussion here.

I support their use, and haven't seen any discussions opposing their use historically. Sergecross73 msg me 16:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agree, the evidence above confirms reliability Atlantic306 (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They're extremely helpful. They run a show called "Wikipedia: Fact or Fiction?" with many different bands' members (ones I've watched include Slayer, Slipknot, Evanescence, and Mastodon) that helps us correct the errors of our ways by providing another perspective, or becoming a source for any information that previously lacked one. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 16:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yes, I was going to mention that in one of my bulletpoints as well. Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I swear one of their editors also worked for MTV Online at one point but I don't remember which one it was... dannymusiceditor Speak up! 18:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Support: Townsquare Media are a major company that publishes other sources deemed to be RS on Wikipedia, like Ultimate Classic Rock and XXL, and Loudwire appears to be a serious website with editorial control. Richard3120 (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

HM Magazine

HM Magazine is another one that I support its use, but it hasn't seen a ton of discussion so I figured I'd post it here.

  • The only discussion I found on it was User:3family6 proposing its inclusion in 2012. He argued that it was a widely used source in Christian -related music. No one opposed (though no one commented either.)
  • They've got a long history in the industry. They started in 1995, and was a print magazine from 1995 to 2011. Having what it takes to publish a print magazine for 15+ years would mean they've got got it takes to meet our RS standards as far as dedicated staff, editorial oversight, etc.
  • I've used it in writing articles over the years, and have personally not had any issues.

Like Loudwire, I support their use, and have seen any discussions opposing it historically either. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Agree it should be considered a reliable source as explained above Atlantic306 (talk) 11:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Support: admittedly I know nothing about Christian rock/metal and never get involved in editing this area of music. But I do know that HM was a print magazine for many years, and as Sergecross73 says, you don't manage that by working out of someone's bedroom – they may have started as a fanzine, but became a properly incorporated company with full-time staff. Richard3120 (talk) 14:37, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For what its worth, they don't seem to be strictly centered around Christian rock/metal either. I've most recently used them quite a bit in my rewriting and article creation related to the band Nothing More, which isn't so much "christian rock" as it is "a rock band who has members that have identified as Christian" type thing. Sergecross73 msg me 16:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I disagree the website should be labeled as an unreliable source in Wikipedia, since it still being used in review aggregators like, Metacritic and AnyDecentMusic?. It even got its own profile page in Metacritic right here [10]. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That's fine, we can open it up for discussion again if you like. I had just added it to the unreliable sources list because no one objected to my stance on it a few weeks ago when we were discussing it.
  • So yes, on the plus side, they're on Metacritic. But that's really not really an "end all, be all" argument on it's own, as there's many instances of discrepancies between Wikipedia's and MetaCritic's standards. (For example, MC uses Dualshockers, but Wikipedia deems it unreliable.
  • My main concern was their About Us page. Yes, it's good they've got dedicated editorial staff, but:
  • There are no credentials listed. Just names, many of them just nicknames too. ("Bort"? "CookCook"?)
  • They describe their staff as "we don’t write for money or fame. Tiny Mix Tapes is comprised of a bunch of over-achievers, and our primary jobs range from studenting, teaching, receptioning, cooking.... That doesn't really sound like professional writers/journalists with credentials.
  • While many of our RS websites are vetted in because they started as print magazines, which are almost always classified as an RS because of the experience and dedication it takes to get a paper magazine into publication. It's Wikipedia article states its origins are not as a magazine, but as a Geocities page, which is pretty much the opposite of an RS. It's the equivalent of today's WordPress blogs - self-published.
So, what other arguments can we find about the website? Do the writers have credentials and they're just not listed on the website? Or listed elsewhere? Do they have writers who have written for other reliable sources? Do other reliable sources frequently use them as a source? Do other reliable sources write articles about their influence? Or them being good? (or bad?) Do they have editorial/review/ethics policies? Anything else we should know about the website? Sergecross73 msg me 14:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sergecross73: Okay, I get it. Now that the website is unreliable, it probably should be removed from articles, but that might be a problem since the website is all over the place. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 16:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, that's one less source to worry about when writing articles, and thank Jesus for that. The reviews by this publication were so ridiculously hard to read. editorEهեইдအ😎 14:01, 2 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

At this GAN I asked about Steve Rosen, who is cited at that article for some pages. The WP Albums sources page says "Only cite articles written by "UG Team" or any members within its group."; the GA nominator pointed out that Rosen is described as a UG interviewer, and provided links. I'm not familiar with the site. Can anyone here advise if Rosen qualifies as a reliable source? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The nominator elaborated that Rosen had worked for other publications prior - Rolling Stone and Guitar World are especially notable ones named. I feel that's solid credibility. dannymusiceditor Speak up! 02:36, 19 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good enough; thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:10, 20 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Sound of Music (soundtrack) needs its Chart Performance table completed

Right now it only lists UK chart performance. (I'm not skilled at those chart tables so I'm letting people here and elsewhere know.) Softlavender (talk) 13:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Softlavender: as you've seen I've tried to update the table - it doesn't work properly for the UK or US yet but that's a result of the OCC and Billboard having changed their websites recently, so the template no longer links to the correct page. I'll have to check the highest position in Canada manually and add it to the table... I don't think there were any other official album charts in existence in other countries at the time. Richard3120 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I don't really understand the templates used but the citations for Billboard etc. are in the lede of the article, if that helps. Softlavender (talk) 15:47, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, they are - the problem is you can't manually alter the template parameters to redirect to those links. I need to bring this up with someone who can rewrite the code for the template at the template's talk page. Soundtracks are always a particular issue due to the lack of specific artist name - there's any number of "original soundtracks" for various films that have charted over the years.
The whole article could do with a review and rewrite - I might have a look at this in the new year. Richard3120 (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Atlantic306, I think you misunderstood – the reliability of AllMusic as a website wasn't in question, it was that it didn't show the album listed on the Top Soundtracks chart, as stated in the article. So that statement needs to be sourced from somewhere else. Richard3120 (talk) 15:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, you both have it wrong. AllMusic is not a reliable source for chart listings, and AllMusic incorrectly had the 2015 album as reaching #5 on Top Soundtracks [11], which is nonsense. Softlavender (talk) 19:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically, chart listings isn't one of the restrictions on AllMusic's use, though it's mostly a moot point in a general sense, as AllMusic stopped hosting charting information a while back anyways. I hadn't had any issues back when they did host it, but I didn't use it much to begin with, because I'd generally just go straight to the respective chart's website instead. Sergecross73 msg me 19:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's a difference between restriction versus reliability, and it's not a moot point because all of the info is available on the Wayback Machine. As as Orion XXV pointed out at Talk:The Sound of Music (film)#Sound Of Music chart positions., AllMusic is and was unreliable for chart positions. In its listings of the Sound of Music soundtrack awards alone it has a dozen ridiculous and preposterously incorrect claims: [12]. -- Softlavender (talk) 22:06, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I provided an anecdote of not having issues with it. You have provided an anecdote of an entry containing errors. No consensus against its use in this capacity has ever existed. (Or if there was, it wasn't documented at WP:MUSIC/SOURCES, the main place it should be documented. That's where we're at right now, no way around it. Sergecross73 msg me 03:20, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not having any current information on WP:WikiProject Albums/Sources against its use for chart positions does not make it a reliable source for chart positions. One does not equate to the other. The list of reliable sources for chart positions are at WP:GOODCHARTS, and AllMusic is clearly not on it. -- Softlavender (talk) 04:21, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are you basing this on anything besides this one anecdote of yours? Because AllMusic has been discussed extensively here at the music Wikiprojects, and to my knowledge, a consensus against using it for charts has never come up, and you haven't provided any evidence to such a consensus either. And of course it's not on WP:GOODCHARTS. Its not a chart. There is no "AllMusic chart". It just used to replicate the Billboard charts, which of course, obviously, is on WP:GOODCHARTS. Rolling Stone isn't on GOODCHARTS either, but that doesn't mean you couldn't use it to source to verify a different chart's position. Sergecross73 msg me 15:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nomination of The Arrow (album) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Arrow (album) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Arrow (album) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regarding EPM

I wanted to ask editors involved in this project about citing the Encyclopedia of Popular Music. Specifically, I wanted to know whether you should include the page numbers in citations for reviews from it based on this version (i.e. the ones included on Google Books but that are not found on the book pages themselves). Every Morning (there's a halo...) 04:16, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen the answer Holiday56 gave you when you asked the same question on his talk page, and I agree with him – digital versions of books rarely include page numbers, and the numbering system used is more of a "digital index" rather than a straight numbering system, which explains why Paula Abdul (who you would expect to be one of the first entries in an alphabetically ordered book) has a "page number" of 1967 in a book which supposedly only has 1600 pages in total. So, yeah, I'd be very careful about quoting page numbers from a digital version of a book – I guess if you were going to use them you'd have to state in the citation that you're using the digital version. Richard3120 (talk) 16:45, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello all. Due to some recent requests, and my own increased interest in music editing in recent years, I've decided to try to cleanup and improve our source list a bit. There's nothing wrong with it, and I'm not planning on doing any major deconstruction or anything, just some improvement stuff. I've worked a lot at the video game WikiProject's equivalent list and there's things I think we could do better here.

  1. I want to try to link to past WikiProject discussions on sources, so it can be verified that it was discussed and there was agreement. (Right now, we do this well on the unreliable source list, but not the reliable source list.)
  2. I'd like to start discussions on any that had no prior discussion, or if they seem a bit iffy.
  3. I'd like to add, remove, or expand upon what we've got based on points #1 and 2.

I'll occasionally start new discussions as I find things I'd like input on. If you object to my changes, feel free to start up a section below too, and we can hash it out.

Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Richard3120's source suggestions

Obviously from my point of view there was my post Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums/Archive 55#To add to sources list, but I take it you're more interested in current online sources. Richard3120 (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My main interest isn't necessarily online sources, its more about consistent formatting and linking to prior discussions, to show that there are actual rationales in the sources we list as reliable or unreliable. In that respect, thank you for this reminder on those sources you mentioned -those are good since we've already got documented discussion on them. Sergecross73 msg me 21:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative Addiction

Alternative Addiction. I almost didn't bother bringing it up, as much as I've seen it be used on Wikipedia. But the archives have 0 discussions about it, and my cursory glances didn't come up with any of the stuff I wanted to see.

  • Zero past discussions on it.
  • It's Wikipedia article says it was started in 1999, so it'd have almost 2 decades of exp, but the statement is unsourced. In fact, all 4 sources in the article are deadlinks, and looking at the link text, likely sourced very little of the article's content anyways.
  • Their About Us page is just an email/social media link list, and their Archives page is equally barren - 9 out of 10 links didn't even work, and the 1 that did, just lead to a list of their top songs ranking for 2014.

Am I missing something here? Anyone else more knowledgeable with them? I don't have much of an argument for keeping it on the reliable sources list so far... Sergecross73 msg me 16:32, 31 January 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I found an archived About Us that states it is/was "Independently owned and operated". I clicked on all of the news posts in the November and December 2003 archives and they seemed to open fine. Yeepsi (talk) 23:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeepsi - Thanks for that. At least that link verifies that they've been around since 1999, so that's almost 2 decades in the industry at least. I don't know why the archives aren't working for me, on my computer or my phone. I assumed they weren't working at all since there's a "it's a work in progress" comment at the top of the archives. Regardless, in looking at them, now or then, do you see any writers names that we could look up background info on separately? Sergecross73 msg me 13:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Found a list of people, but after googling, I couldn't find anything mentioning other publications/companies. Yeepsi (talk) 14:05, 2 February 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]